?
Thanks Tim. I certainly agree there are harsh ghosts caused by the
stark contrast lines within the car's interior. The thought occurred to me
of using a FW but I also knew that using it would mean having to float the
window more than even I would consider "pleasing". That
still would only diminish some and not all the contrasting ghosts.
As a sort of compromise, I cropped more of the bottom which was closer to
the stereo window. This allowed me to float the window at least 50 pixels
less than if I had not cropped. I could have gone more but also
sacrificing more of the interior. Comparing the previous version with the
FW version, to me the FW seems less "ghosty" but I also know that some in the
group don't like the FW, no matter what you've done to help it. There are
others yet, who have become accustomed to ghosts inherent to anaglyphs and don't
mind them as much as others. In other words, this was a toss-up for me to
use the FW or not. The only other solution that I think would work better
is to change the shades of the interior for less contrasting. I
didn't think the image was worthy of going to such an extent, plus it may end up
compromising the image of the car itself which could mean more to the car
lover than to the photographer.
With all that said, I've attached the FW version for
comparison.
I did not boost contrast as I usually like to do on most anaglyphs since it
may enhance ghosting in this particular case.
Brian
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 11:53
AM
Subject: Re: [Anaglyphs] Austin Healey #2
-Brian
Nice interior shot that might look better with a FW mask. I'm not
proficient at masks yet but perhaps it might be a worthy experiment for
someone who is :)
From:
Brian Wallace <Starg82343(-at-)hotmail.com> Subject:
[Anaglyphs] Austin Healey #2 To: "anaglyphs"
<anaglyphs(-at-)yahoogroups.com> Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2010,
2:26 AM
Austin Healey 3000
#2
The interior of this classic, taken as I walked past on my way to
enter Costco.
|